Signs for the Future of Civil Justice Research

  • Brian H. Bornstein


Medical Malpractice Punitive Damage Mock Juror Jury Trial Damage Award 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abramson, J. (1994). We, the jury: The jury system and the ideal of democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Benton, T.R., McDonnell, S., Ross, D.F., Thomas, W.N., & Bradshaw, E. (2007). Has eyewitness research penetrated the American legal system? In R.C.L. Lindsay, D.F. Ross, J.D. Read, & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. 2: Memory for people (pp. 453–500). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bliesener, T. (2006). Lay judges in the German criminal court: Social-psychological aspects of the German criminal justice system. In M.F. Kaplan & A.M. Martin (Eds.), Understanding world jury systems through social psychological research. NewYork: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blumenthal, J.A. (2002). Law and social science in the twenty-first century. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 12, 1–53.Google Scholar
  5. Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, B.H., & Greene, E. (in press). Consulting on damage awards. To appear in R.L. Wiener & B.H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bornstein, B.H., & McCabe, S.G. (2005). Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in jury simulation research. Florida State University Law Review, 32, 443–467.Google Scholar
  8. Diamond, S.S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulation. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond, S.S. (2003). Convergence and complementarity between professional judges and lay adjudicators. In P. van Koppen & S.D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial vs. inquisitorial justice (pp. 321–332). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Galanter, M. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 459–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H. (2000). Precious little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 743–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene, E., & Bornstein, B.H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  13. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J., & Wistrich, A.J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–830.Google Scholar
  14. Hans, V.P. (2006, Spring). The twenty-first century jury: Worst of times or best of times? Criminal Law Brief, 3–8.Google Scholar
  15. Institute of Medicine (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system. Retrieved March 9, 2007 from:
  16. Jonakait, R.N. (2003). The American jury system. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kalven, H. (1958). The jury, the law, and the personal injury damage award. Ohio State Law Journal, 19, 159–178.Google Scholar
  18. Kalven, H. (1964). The dignity of the civil jury. Virginia Law Review, 50, 1055–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaplan, M.F., & Martin, A.M. (2006). Understanding world jury systems through social psychological research. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kerr, N.L., & Bray, R.M. (2005). Simulation, realism, and the study of the jury. In N. Brewer & K.D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 322–364). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  21. Lawless, R.M., Robbennolt, J.K., & Ulen, T.S. (in press). Empirical methods in law. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Merritt, D.J., & Cihon, J. (1997). New course offerings in the upper-level curriculum: Report of an AALS survey. Journal of Legal Education, 47, 524–570.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, M.K., & Bornstein, B.H. (2004). Juror stress: Causes and interventions. Thurgood Marshall Law Review, 30, 237–269.Google Scholar
  24. Ogloff, J.R.P., & Finkelman, D. (1999). Psychology and law: An overview. In R. Roesch, S.D. Hart, & J.R.P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 1–20). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007).Google Scholar
  26. Post, L. (Nov. 10, 2004). Spelling it out in plain English. National Law Journal online.Google Scholar
  27. Robbennolt, J.K. (2005). Evaluating juries by comparison to judges: A benchmark for judging? Florida State University Law Review, 32, 469–509.Google Scholar
  28. Robbennolt, J.K., & Studebaker, C.A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23,353–373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saks, M.J. (1989). Legal policy analysis and evaluation. American Psychologist, 44, 1110–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saks, M.J. (1992). Do we really know anything about the behavior of the tort litigation system—and why not? University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1147–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharkey, C.M. (2003). Punitive damages as societal damages. Yale Law Journal, 113, 347–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharkey, C.M. (2005). Unintended consequences of medical malpractice damages caps. New York University Law Review, 80, 391–512.Google Scholar
  33. Sheinman, H. (2003). Tort law and corrective justice. Law and Philosophy, 22, 21–73.Google Scholar
  34. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003).Google Scholar
  35. Sunstein, C., Hastie, R., Payne, J., Schkade, D., & Viscusi, W. (2002). Punitive damages: How juries decide. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  37. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  38. Van Koppen, P., & Penrod, S.D. (2003). Adversarial vs. inquisitorial justice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Vidmar, N. (2000). World jury systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. (2007). American juries: The verdict. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wiener, R.L. (2007). Law and everyday decision making: Rational, descriptive, and normative models. In R.L. Wiener, B.H. Bornstein, R. Schopp, & S.L. Willborn (Eds.), Social consciousness in legal decision making (pp. 3–32). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian H. Bornstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NebraskaLincoln

Personalised recommendations